Anarchy? Would that be the elite's vision of Anarchy that has been fed to the masses as a violent destructive replacement for government, or it's original meaning - that of a peaceful carefree utopian society free from all forms of oppression especially government!

I doubt he knows the meaning of Anarchy! Of course the rest is just limited hangout!

Anarchy was my choice of words to describe what the take away I get from Grove's general opposition to institutionalized authority, whether it be compulsory education, government, banks, corporate kleptocrats, (but I repeat myself), the military, the media, etc.

Not the balaclava wearing window smashers version of anarchy that is promoted and denounced by those whose use violence as the only method of achieving their ends. I guess if that word has to be clarified here, it's truly lost to the ages.

So, how much opposition to the PTB can one express and still be labelled a limited hangout? Should media fakery be the only item on the agenda of those opposed to the idea of being tax livestock?

Farcevalue wrote:So, how much opposition to the PTB can one express and still be labelled a limited hangout? Should media fakery be the only item on the agenda of those opposed to the idea of being tax livestock?

Dear Farcevalue,

I do appreciate your quite legitimate concern of not "throwing out the baby with the bath water", so to say. However, you may also appreciate my own legitimate concerns in this specific case - which, of course, have to do strictly with Richard Grove and his 9/11 tales. Yes, I'll agree that it would be unwise to indiscriminately dismiss/distrust anyone who doesn't focus principally on media fakery - and put such people in the 'limited hangout' category. But I hope you'll agree that what we have here is a rather special case.

Let's see: here we have a guy who appears to be very knowledgeable indeed of the murky and corrupt world that surrounds us, who emerged on the international 'conspiracy scene' under the guise of a highly connected "whistleblower" which he allegedly became after being sacked from a company (Marsh Mc Lellan) which claims to have lost 295 employees on 9/11, while he himself miraculously survived. Now, could Richard Grove possibly, in a way or another, have been duped - as in "unwittingly set up" - by the perps in order to reinforce the notion of the WTC being packed with bustling office workers on 9/11 ? Perhaps - but pretty unlikely, imho. I guess we could ask him if he himself has ever considered being duped all along - as to the presence of his colleagues inside the WTC...

The problem is, Grove's "whistleblowing" story sounds even more unlikely and outlandish: it basically purports that his 295 colleagues were all duped and lured like hordes of cattle to turn up at their WTC offices - only to be mass-slaughtered as part of a sinister corporate money-laundering scheme devised by a (non-existent) company called "Buttonwood"... Also, we are also asked to suspend disbelief when it comes to another equally outlandish part of his 9/11, "high-level whistleblowing", i.e. that of the "10.000 tons of gold stolen from beneath the World Trade Center, before the Towers collapsed ". Furthermore, we now 'learn' that his female companion, Lisa Arbercheski, was allegedly also sacked in 2003 from a major company (Oracle) highly suspected, throughout our longstanding investigations, to have been involved with the 9/11 scam - and specifically, with the creation of the fraudulent digital database of fictitious victims. And once again, we're asked to suspend our disbelief when reading that the sacked, Oracle-Lisa successively (in 2004) took up a waitress job at a Hot Tomato restaurant...

I'd say that we have more than enough urgent questions to clear up here, before we can even start to consider the possible genuinity and spotless integrity of this soft-spoken, intelligent-sounding fellow known as 'Richard Andrew Grove'. I have just sent this message to Mr. Grove - over his website's contact page

Hello,

I would like to invite Mr. Richard Grove to our discussion forum in order to offer him a due and fair opportunity to respond to some legitimate questions being raised concerning his 9/11-related accounts which, of course, have been hotly debated in numerous international websites over the years. Here's the link to our discussion at Cluesforum.info :http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.ph ... 2&start=15

Allright, so since Richard Grove apparently has nothing against it (as I can gather), here are our e-mail exchanges we had in this last hour:

RichardGrove wrote:Hi Simon, you and I corresponded a few years back, we were then and still are, impressed by the fortitude of evidence you offered within September Clues.

That being read, the link you sent misfires, but I went to the homepage and searched my name, and I'm open to better understanding how exactly you would like me to justify my existence as an individual who is not a Belushi, I'm 10 years older, well taller, and I can substantiate my individuality beyond reasonable doubt to put this line of fallacious reasoning to rest, so the forum can get back to researching the substance and not the arbitrary claims which I just read.

For instance, by the law of identity, I cannot be in 2 places at one time, nor can 2 people occupy the same space at the same time. Also, Lisa and I are the same age, we've been together for 10 years, and this easily also can be substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.

I'm somewhat disappointed, that having published over 200+ hours of curriculum on critical thinking, logic, fallacies, and removal of contradictions to attain high levels of certainty (via the Peace Revolution Podcast and our films)... that so many can be easily rused by Ed Chiarini, aka dallasgoldbug, aka wellaware1. That's not an ad hominem, it's an observation of fact, which I can substantiate.

It's ironic how commercial-free independent media producers, all of us struggling, can be so readily attacked without substantial evidence, and so many just follow his line of fallacies to irrational conclusions.

What do you seek in the way of evidence so that my identity is beyond reasonable doubt?

Aside from your initial inquiry, we'd be interested in doing a video skype interview with you to discuss September Clues and why so many people can't see the numerous contradictions which you note therein. When I contacted you a few years back, I was seeking a high-quality DVD version of your film, is that something that I could trade you for or purchase?

THANKS

::peace::rich

My reply (which inexplicably bounced when I sent it to his "Richard@TragedyandHope.com" e-mail addy - but which I subsequently sent again to his website's contact page):

simonshack wrote:Dear Richard,

Thanks for a very prompt response!

As you can see on our forum thread, I promptly dismissed the idea (posted by a newbie from Holland) that you are somehow Belushi-related. The questions we have about you have nothing to do with your physical traits - as you can easily make out for yourself. I'm surprised that you even mentioned that Belushi thing. Please take some time to read my own posts on that thread.

You asked:

"What do you seek in the way of evidence so that my identity is beyond reasonable doubt?"

Again, that question should be very clear to you if you only take time to read my posts You are an intelligent person - and I think I have described in great detail what questions I have. Your identity is not so much the point here. But there should be no ambiguity as to the substance of my (and our common) questions concerning your alleged 9/11 whistleblowing - and those 295 Marsh Mc Lellan colleagues that you claim to have lost.

Please let me know if it's ok with you that I post this e-mail exchange on Cluesforum. I was actually hoping you would register at our forum - please feel free to do so if you wish.

Simon Shack

Richard Grove replied twice after the above post of mine:

RichardGrove wrote:By the way, I just searched up Edward Chiarini who lives in TX, is this who you guys are trusting? What is the nature of his identity? Has anyone verified him?

I'm happy to verify my identity, I'm being slandered and libeled, and this case is a slam dunk.

Richard Grove wrote:Hi Simon, please give me a specific link or links to review, aforementioned your initial link misfired, so obviously what I found in my search is not what you are seeking to verify, my apologies.

I will review it and respond to it accordingly, but please appreciate that I work producing media every day, I've got a full schedule with deadlines for project deliverables, we have a feature film we're co-producing, and my usual workload is extensive, so I'm happy to answer your questions but due to reasons of integrity and time management I can't re-prioritize my ongoing projects.

That being read, if what I read from your links is something which doesn't take much time, I'm likely to get to it sooner than later. I would register at the cluesforum, but with running our own site with more than 2,000 members, I've got my hands full and wouldn't get to do much if anything beyond reading your specific link(s). Just being honest, I hope it helps to set the mutual expectation.

Looking forward to reading the link(s)

::peace::Rich

To which I replied:

simonshack wrote:Richard,

Please send me a valid e-mail addy of yours. This Richard@TragedyandHope.comdoes not work - it keeps bouncing back my replies to you. (well, if you receiveTHIS MAIL, it means the problem was only temporary).

Yes, I am also very busy managing a 1300-member forum, so I can understandyour time constraints. But I'm sure you can find the time to atleast address these few issues listed in this post of mine:

RichardGrove wrote:Short answer: I might have believed at one time without questioning that many died in the WTC attacks, but I do not claim nor have I claimed this; and references I've made where a simple function of not questioning that particular perspective of the 9-11 story, a blind spot which I should have questioned more diligently before repeating that which I had not verified for myself. Until your email, any claims that I've previously reviewed which are similar to your hypothesis have proven to be red herrings which didn't lead to any substance.

Long answer: I don't believe in evidence I haven't seen, so concur with the need to question the nature and source bringing us the numbers of "those who perished" on 9-11.

To clarify, any comments I've made regarding people who were in the towers are based solely on the interactions I had that morning, and thereafter through what the media has purported with respect to the numbers of how many allegedly perished, etc. So with respect to my belief that people died in the WTC on 9/11, it's worth considering because I realize it could be one of my blind spots.

Other than that, I might readily support your latest work, but I can't comment yet b/c I have yet to review it.

So I don't oppose your hypothesis, b/c my personal experiences did not include studying bone fragments, identifying victims, etc., so any comments or references I've made are not claims on my part (regarding WTC victims) but a reflection of what the official story claims.

For instance, one of my questions is: if 3,000 perished, why are only just over a thousand identified, and it seems most identified jumped before the wtc dissolved into thin air. So I respect that you're asking questions.

I can tell you that I worked with flesh and blood human beings, as I've named, and that I worked with these people several days a week for approx. 1 1/2 years prior to 9-11, that their loved ones believe them also to be dead, and that the towers were occupied on almost every floor at the time of my termination on June 2001.

Beyond that, I'm just as in the dark as everyone else, I attended a lot of memorial services; and so in the case of victims of the WTC my belief without questioning doesn't benefit me, so I'll look more into it.

Where's the best link to review your latest work on the possibility that the WTC was partially/entirely vacant, if I am understanding your hypothesis accurately?

RichardGrove wrote:By the way dude, are you really not able to email me on this address or are you just pulling my leg? The reason I'm asking is b/c I keep getting email from others on my Richard@TragedyandHope.com account, and it would be easier than lisa sliding her laptop across the desk and having me type on her keyboard.

Well, here's a screenshot of my e-mail INBOX showing that ALL of my e-mails to the "Richard@TragedyandHope.com" e-mail account just BOUNCED BACK:

All of the above "MAIL DELIVERY SERVICE" return-mails contain this message:

- These recipients of your message have been processed by the mail server:Richard@TragedyandHope.com; Failed; 5.1.1 (bad destination mailbox address)

The only way I managed to communicate with him was via his websites' contact page. I had to copy and paste into this contact page every single e-mail which bounced back on me.

This is getting ridiculous - and VERY time-consuming for me. I hope Richard Grove will now understand that we need to establish a proper internet connection between ourselves.

Well he's actually acting like a decent human being who can question consensus reality like a person, and that goes quite some way in my book. You should definitely try to establish meaningful contact and see if he can present some physical proofs of his experiences - i.e.; non-doctored pictures, yearbooks, and other documents that establish his flesh-and-blood folks as existent and the towers being as occupied as he seems to think.

hoi.polloi wrote:Well he's actually acting like a decent human being who can question consensus reality like a person, and that goes quite some way in my book. You should definitely try to establish meaningful contact and see if he can present some physical proofs of his experiences - i.e.; non-doctored pictures, yearbooks, and other documents that establish his flesh-and-blood folks as existent and the towers being as occupied as he seems to think.

Yes, Hoi - this is precisely what I will be aiming for - from now on.

I think that Richard Grove will have to register on this forum (no matter what his time constraints are), were it only to provide us with a convincing picture corroborated with factual evidence that real people died in the WTC towers on 9/11.

Here are the five friendly Marsh Mc Lellan executives/co-workers (who allegedly perished in the WTC) whom Richard Grove mentions in his long 2006 "whistleblowing" article. Here's an extract from it:

RichardGrove wrote:"I brought my concerns up to executives inside of SilverStream, and I was urged to keep quiet and mind my own business. I went to an executive at Marsh, and he advised me to do likewise… but THEN I mentioned it to a few executives at Marsh who I could trust- like Gary Lasko…and Kathryn Lee, Ken Rice, Richard Breuhardt, John Ueltzhoeffer - people who became likewise concerned that something untoward was going on.

Richard George Bruehert - ("RGB")http://voicesofseptember11.org/dev/memo ... 1116350283(I assume this is the man which Mr Grove erroneously refers to as "Richard Breuhardt". Why Mr. Grove can possibly have grossly misspelled the surname of a man whom he describes as a friendly/trusted executive of his own company who allegedly tragically died in the WTC - is anyone's guess. Also, for Mr. Grove to leave this error uncorrected in his own, April 2006 "whistleblowing" article for all these years, is not only quite odd - but downright offensive to the Bruehert family...if this family exists, of course.)